beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.29 2014가단19369

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 24, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On December 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract to Nonparty C for the removal of the instant D building underground (hereinafter “instant removal works”) and introduced the Plaintiff to the Defendant on January 24, 2013, when C performed the said removal works, due to a fall accident, and around January 2013. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that C would proceed with the instant removal works contracted by the Defendant in the amount of KRW 25 million. The Plaintiff completed the instant removal works around January 2013, and the Plaintiff may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 5 (including the serial number) and the purport of all pleadings. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 24, 2014, the following day after a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to carry out the removal works of this case, and the defendant shall restore the Switzerland, which was installed in the Gaba under the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, to its original state upon the termination of the lease of the defendant's above building. The plaintiff agreed to return the above Gatra to the defendant, but the plaintiff cannot pay the removal construction cost because he did not dispose of the above Gatra at will more than KRW 100 million and did not return it. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff agreed to return the Gara to the defendant merely by the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the above Ga, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's defense is without merit

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.